On November 3, 2016, a deaf female prisoner of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility filed this pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff sued the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Corrections, the Executive Director of the Colorado ...
read more >

On November 3, 2016, a deaf female prisoner of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility filed this pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff sued the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Corrections, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, and the Warden of the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She also brought claims under § 1983 of constitutional violations of the Eight Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process. The plaintiff sought damages, and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher and then later reassigned to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak.

The plaintiff alleged she was denied a Sorenson Video Phone (SVP) after many requests. The SVP offers a service for the deaf community paid for by the government for those who qualify under the ADA. Unable to obtain counsel, the plaintiff had to file and refile amended complaints to meet the court’s standards. After the plaintiff obtained counsel from the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center on March 31, 2017, she filed a third amended complaint on June 15, 2017, and added three new plaintiffs. The plaintiff sued the defendants under § 1983 and Title II of the ADA, and added claims of violations of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to allow them to use the SVP service even though they qualified.

On June 30, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, claiming that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The court disagreed with the defendants’ arguments and on September 29, 2017, denied the motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiff had standing to assert her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, that the plaintiff pleaded plausible claims for relief and that her First Amendment claim was sufficient. On January 10, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation dismissing one of the plaintiffs added by the third amended complaint. The court approved this dismissal.

On January 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, adding two plaintiffs and removing the Fourteenth Amendment claim. The defendants filed an answer to this complaint on February 5, 2018. The case is ongoing.